My .02 is that it's suffiently important and/or potentially contentious
that's it's worth calling out separately.
Calling all process wonks ...
(google fails me on 'define:wonk': I'm hoping this isn't a pejorative usage.
Light humour is intended.)
Howard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 10:16 AM
> To: howardk@fatdog.com
> Cc: DAWG Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Use cases for XML serialization
>
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2005, at 1:07 PM, Howard Katz wrote:
>
> > Thanks Bijan,
>
> No problem.
>
> > Yes, that was me. What I was actually saying (JANNE: I didn't see this
> > get
> > into the IRC record; would you mind amending it?) was that I'd like to
> > see a
> > formal addition to the Use Cases document if we're going to consider
> > this.
>
> Ok. Is it that you don't think it's sufficiently motivated by the WSDL
> requirement, or is it that you prefer to have it called out separately
> in any case? (I'm fine with either, fwiw :))
>
> > My understanding (please anybody, correct me if I'm wrong) was that
> > anything
> > considered sufficiently important to become part of the official
> > specification needs to be motivated by a formal use case first. Is
> > that not
> > so?
>
> I have no idea ;) Since I think it's very overdetermined, I have a
> little trouble getting some distance.
>
> But if there needs to be text, I would take an action to try to massage
> the above or the like into such text. Or maybe kendall would take it
> from there if I got him some donuts :)
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>